May 2019

Dismal to Hopeless: Update on the rights of Tibetan refugees in Nepal

June 9. 2011

Earlier this week, June 5-6, United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of State (DAS) for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Kelly Clements visited Kathmandu to discuss humanitarian protection and assistance issues for Tibetan and Bhutanese refugees. This was her second trip to Nepal within the year.

In regard to Tibetan refugees, DAS Clements voiced her concern to Home Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara. She stressed her concern over Nepal’s failure to register Tibetan children born in Nepal after the 1990 census. Nepal has not conducted a Tibetan census since – two decades of inattention.

WHAT IS NEPAL’S STANCE ON TIBETAN REFUGEES AND TO WHAT EXTENT DOES IT CONCUR WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW?

Apart from keeping Beijing happy (by prohibiting Tibetans from demonstrating, or in any way illustrating support for the Dalai Lama), Nepal’s interest in its Tibetan refugee population is negligible.

Significantly, Nepal is neither a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention, (conducted and approved by the United Nations) nor the follow-up 1967 Protocol. Combined, they define the international stance on the rights of refugees and stress that refugees have the right to be protected against refoulement (forcible return to the country of origin.)

As stated in the Convention: "No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion" (Article 33(1).

It is widely accepted that the prohibition of forcible return is part of customary international law. This means that even States that are not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention must respect the principle of non-refoulement. Therefore, States are obligated under the Convention and under customary international law to respect the principle of non-refoulement. If and when this principle is threatened, UNHCR can respond by intervening with relevant authorities, and if it deems necessary, will inform the public.

Although Nepal is not a signatory of the Convention, it did acquiesce to a “gentleman’s agreement” with the UN in 1989. Nepal agreed to allow the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) to oversee safe passage of Tibetan refugees (who escape through Nepal) to continue on to India, rather than force Tibetans caught in Nepal to return to China. Since the Dalai Lama fled Tibet in 1959, a continuous flow of Tibetans have left China seeking asylum in Nepal, India, Bhutan and elsewhere, leading to a population of over 120,000 Tibetans currently living in settlements throughout South Asia. Approximately 20,000 are now stranded in Nepal.

WHERE DOES THE UNITED STATES FIT INTO NEPAL’S “GENTLEMAN’S AGREEMENT?

The US -- through the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) -- provides support to the Tibet Fund to carry out humanitarian assistance activities for Tibetan refugees in Nepal (and other South Asian countries) in close partnership with the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) and the UNHCR.

However, since the March 2008 protests in Lhasa, the numbers of Tibetans departing China has dropped from 2,156 in 2007 to 596 in 2008 and 838 in 2009, and, at the same time, the government of China has increased pressure on the government of Nepal to curtail the activities of Tibetans within Nepal. In the last ten years, there have been several verified cases of refoulement occurring in Nepal. Nevertheless, the UNHCR and PRM continue to work to significantly ensure that Tibetan asylum seekers are not returned involuntarily to Tibet and to enhance protection for refugees resident in Nepal.

Deputy Assistant Secretary Kelly Clements’ visit to Kathmandu this week served as a reminder to the Nepali government that the Tibetan issue has not been forgotten in Washington even if the current government in Nepal prefers to sweep the issue under the carpet.

When Clements met with Home Minister (and Maoist leader) Mahara this week, calling for Nepal to illustrate a more pro-active approach to the rights of Tibetan refugees, she emphasized the importance of the registration of Tibetan refugees’ children born after 1990, who face almost insurmountable difficulties in studying, pursuing higher education abroad, landing jobs and attaining necessary documentation.

Home Minister Mahara’s response was laughably meaningless. He was quoted as saying that the government would “ think positively”.

But to be fair to Maoist leadership, their indifference to the Tibetans is no greater than the other leading political parties’. For instance, in 2008, when I interviewed the then Deputy Prime Minister Bam Dev Gautam (leader of the UML party) and asked him to address the lack of legal rights of Tibetan refugees, he promised to look into the issue. No improvement of Tibetans’ rights occurred during his tenure in the government.

And during her earlier visit to Nepal this year, DAS Kelly Clements made a similar request to the then Foreign Minister Sujata Koirala (a leader in the Nepali Congress party.) There was absolutely no follow-up on the part of Nepal’s government as a result of that meeting.

Bottom line, no Nepali political leader, regardless of his or her political affiliation, wants to stir the Tibetan pot. With or without high profile visits from the US government, the Tibetans in Nepal remain without hope of ever attaining legal rights in Nepal -- particularly since no politico will risk the wrath of Beijing by talking about the rights of Tibetan refugees.